For some years now, the poster who goes by the name of ''Textusa'' has refused to publish posts which pose questions she either cannot or would prefer not to answer.
Textusa likes to claim that she withholds posts because they contain abusive language. In fact this is rarely the case - usually they simply point out the flaws in her ridiculous notions
So if she refuses to publish your posts and you want to have your say, send them to me. I'll put them on here for you

Translate

Tuesday, 4 December 2018

NT - No Timewasters, is now live, link on the previous post. If you are interested in becoming a reader (not you, Textusa) then please either email me (email address at the top of the page) or send a Do Not Publish comment on this page.

Wednesday, 28 November 2018

I debated for a while over whether to even respond to this, but I think it has gone far enough.

As you may have seen, Textusa has posted a claim that a daughter of one of his ''team'' was followed home from school and that the incident was reported to the police.

I'm sure it was very distressing for her and clearly reporting it to the police was the right thing to do.

Allowing Textusa to use it for his own ends is, however, NOT the right thing to do.

For idiots like Carla Spade to be making her usual allegations on Twitter is a very silly thing to do. It's also rather hypocritical - she is squealing like a stuck pig at her own details being revealed, yet thinks nothing of falsely claiming that I am Walker and Wright; something she has been doing for over a year.

So bugger off ladies - and Textusa. I have no time for people who would exploit the distress of their own children for the sake of point scoring.

Sad, sad wankers.

Footnote:

Incidentally, Carla, Textusa used your full name on numerous occasions, as on here https://textusa.blogspot.com/2015/11/non-post.html#more

Sunday, 11 November 2018

Evening all!I know I shouldn't, but I just had to bring you this, fresh from the poison pen of Mr/s TextabuserI suspect someone is off their meds again.

Oh, Orlov (now Hall), you seem to think that we included you when we mentioned the distracting attacks against us. If that is the case, our apologies.

No need to apologise, Looney Toons

You have no importance whatsoever. Please understand that and understand that we’re not doing this to belittle you. That, you do a nice job by your infantile self.

Oooh, how hurtful!

For the case, and that is what matters, it has to be noted the importance you have, which is, we repeat, none.

So, no importance then. Okay.

You were just a tool that we used to out Mr Thompson. Then, we were quite clear and stressed that fact, that you had absolutely no importance whatsoever.

I get it, no importance.

That is important because if you had any importance whatsoever, the storm Mr Thompson created in a glass of water because of you would have a reason. As you really have no importance whatsoever, everyone could see that he used his friendship over you to try to get to us, his hysteria being transparently disproportionate.

Dave was inconsolable.

Okay, already. No importance. We get it. Calm down, dear, your hysteria is showing and I have to say, it's a bit disproportionate, transparent or otherwise.

So, as you can see, you having the no importance you have is really important to the case. We can’t stress that more.

😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆 So, you're saying he has no importance, amiright?

You are a simple supplier of spittle for the lick-spittles. Nothing more.

How very dare you. We lickspittlers use only the finest quality spittle, milked fresh daily from the rare Dontgiveafuck tribe in Western Samoa, and flown in by executive jet. We demand a retraction.

Joyously, the lickspittlers ran to meet the jet delivering their latest consignment

Now that Mr Thompson is going to spend his Christmases (to keep on topic) with his new BFF, NT, and no longer with you

(basing this solely on the passionate friendship Mr Thompson showed to have for you)

You slut, Ben. How could you?

you might now consider spending them with your new BFF, Jules.

You can't have her. Isn't that right, Jules?

There was always a good spread at the Ancient Order of Lickspittlers Christmas banquet, served on big round tables complete with tablecloths and placemats. In 547 years, a table had never collapsed

A person you publicly so much respect, endorse and love and seem so willing to overlook all her untruths and her close friendship with a clear abduction apologist, Frog.

Many human/amphibian relationships are very special, Text. Don't knock it until you've tried it

Frankly, Jules had heard enough of Textusa's Amphibihate. Frogs were people too.

You do make a lovely couple and after all, why care about a dead little girl when one can try to be funny and win the ladies over?

Ah, the Madeleine equivalent of Godwin's Law! It was bound to appear. (You probably won't understand that, Text. Ask a grown up to explain it for you)

The only surprising thing about you is your indignation when someone calls you a pro. Where’s the surprise?

Probably stems from the fact that he isn't one.Textusa, I really would suggest you calm the fuck down. At some point you will have to accept that most people think you are completely bonkers, that you suffer from an intractable table fixation, and that your mental health is failing quicker than a Post-Brexit trade deal.Get some help, sweetie.

After dinner, the Ancient Order of Lickspittlers would dance the night away on an inadequate esplanade.

Thursday, 8 November 2018

If you can put this on full screen, watch it, yet still say it does not clearly show a big round fucking table then you need:1. Specsavers2. A psychiatrist.3. To be sectioned.I am not even going to bother going through the fucking IKEA catalogue of tables Sextabusa has assembled because it amounts to no more than trolling and I am fairly sure s/he is wanking away to the attention like a bored chimp.Don't bother leaving comments saying "..but it's Brunt!!" because the answer will be "So fucking what?"Grow the fuck up, Bruce, you utter gobshite. Just because you managed to get three people, all of whom are too stupid to pull their own knickers up without a diagram, to believe this cobblers doesn't mean that you have any chance with anyone in full possession of their faculties.And now here are some cats jumping in the air. Enjoy

Sunday, 4 November 2018

Guys, I hope it's okay my bringing this across - let me know if it's not, but it was just too funny not to share

#mccann I'm right envious me....YOU have a BRT named after you. "The Silverdoe BRT". Like getting yer own park bench with a name plaque opposite the village pond.Meanwhile... pic.twitter.com/8zPAuSoc6c

Wednesday, 31 October 2018

WAS MADDIE DEFINITELY SEEN DURING THE WEEK? See list below. If anyone has one I have not included, please let me know.

Yes she was. Get a life, you mad midget

There have been efforts to DISCREDIT my research on whether witnesses really DID see Madeleine or whether they were mistaken. I have NEVER claimed witnesses/nannies lied, mainly because I don't believe they did. Here is a SUMMARY of what I have put together over the LAST 8 YEARS!

It's not really possible to discredit your research, because it never warranted any credit in the first place. Of course you believe they lied - you are just too dishonest to say it.No-one gives a shit about what you have ''put together''. It's all absolute bullshit.

Discrepancies started Tuesday morning which seemed, to me, to be an effort to cover up something. Had something happened to Maddie by Tuesday morning?

No they didn't, and no it hadn't.

Back in 2010 I decided to study and scrutinise all the statements of those that claimed to have seen her, and if I came across one that was sufficient to believe she was definitely seen on that day, I hoped to be able to identify WHICH day something happened.

The only problem is, dear, YOU decided what the standard of proof was, using some demented arbitrary system of your own devising. None of the police agree with you, but of course they are not bonkers or deranged from years of breathing in paint fumes.

Fatima the cleaner's daughter was the ONLY statement I saw where Maddie was identified with no questions in my mind.

No-one gives a shit about your ''mind'', halfwit.

Sunday lunchtime around 1.15pm. She specifically identified Maddie outside her apartment and met with them as she was going upstairs to join her mother cleaning in the apartment next to David Paynes (where the McCanns were heading for lunch)

I found NO other statements, TO THIS DAY, that I can feel comfortable and sure that the child they saw was Maddie.

No-one cares, Lizzie. If you want to be dishonest enough to dismiss numerous statements from people who knew her, then fill your varnish-splattered boots, sweetcheeks

Knowing that one of the Tapas children was identified by Miguel Matias as being Maddie when we KNOW she wasn't at the Paraiso according to the CCTV is EXACTLY what may have happened to other witnesses.

Bull fucking shit. He didn't know her. The other witnesses did.

Some of the were not specific enough to allow for me to claim they definitely saw Maddie.

Nobody is interested in your claim, dear, just theirs

I will post the individual statements in the following 30 or so, messages. Please let me know if you are not in agreement and consider any one of the statements as being a DEFINITE sighting.

I am not in agreement, neither are any of my readers. I have not had a single message in support of you, despite the bleating of your army of pantwetters

I do not claim Maddie WASN'T seen... I have only attempted to see if there was a day in the week that she WAS seen.

Oh for fucks's sake - at least own it - you are desperate to try to convince people she wasn't seen - so desperate that you dismiss out of hand the accounts of people who knew her, the paper records and the photographic record, you old fraud

29) - Miguel Matias, manager of the beach-side Paraíso restaurant - Was mistaken and saw one of the other tapas children dancing with her daddy proven by the CCTV footage.

It's quite sneaky, what you do, isn't it? You include accounts that were quickly ruled out by the police, as if you made some startling discovery.You are such a fraud, Lizzie. It's an absolute insult to the memory of that poor child

Lizzy Hideho TaylorAccording to all those witness statements noone specifically or definitely saw her after Sunday. We dont know what day something happened, hence the point of my research to see if she WAS seen for sure

That, my dear, is a blatant, outright lie. No ifs or buts about it.A bare-faced, cynical lie that you have been trotting out for years.

Tuesday, 30 October 2018

Well, I would suggest that when you buy a book that promises to be "Genuinely frightening, forensically detailed" you are expecting to read something which lives up to those claims. However, we must remember that the quote on the cover comes from none other than Judy Finnigan.

Now, I quite like Judy - she likes a pint and rocks a sports bra - but I don't think she's the best critic in the world.

Still, it also gets this rave review

"'Delves beneath the hysterical headlines to tell the real story of this heart-breaking mystery' Choice Magazine

For those of you who haven't had the pleasure, Choice magazine is a small circulation magazine specifically for the Over 50s, packed to the rafters with articles about how to find a lost pension and ways to stave off type 2 diabetes

Let's just say it isn't the Washington Post, and leave it at that

Still, like me you are probably hoping for something original and certainly some new information.

So tonight I want to show you some choice quotes from "Looking for Madeleine"

Kate would recall her big blue-green eyes as seemingly ever open – one of them, the right eye, bearing a rare blemish in the iris. The mark, known as a coloboma, would one day receive worldwide publicity.

Kate McCann was initially hesitant about the trip. She has explained this by saying she had concerns about what it would cost, and all the trouble and organisation involved in getting three small children to Portugal and back for just a few days.

Spotted it yet?There is virtually nothing in this book which is original. They actually spoke to very few of the protagonists, except for a carefully curated selection of the McCanns Besties, like Jim Gamble and Brian KennedyMost of the ''quotes'' are simply paraphrased from other books, statements or newspaper articles, written in such a way as to make it appear to the casual observer that the authors have actually had some form of contact with these people.They haven't.It is the written equivalent of a sleight of hand; a less than skillful deception, essentially.This might not be the worst book written about the case, but it is certainly the laziest

This claim is made in the opening pages of the book, and should bode well. I have no doubt the account was relatively independent, but was it objective? Within the next page, the following claim emerges:

Speculation that the McCanns played a role in their daughter’s fate, the authors demonstrate, is unfounded.

Now, as you can imagine, I will be taking issue with that in a big way. The authors may not personally believe the speculation, but I am of the opinion that they cannot possibly declare it 'unfounded', not least because the McCanns remain uncleared former arguidos.The book opens with the following declaration:

The authors wish to make clear at the outset that, after more than two years studying this controversial case, they have seen not a shred of evidence to indicate that Gerry and Kate McCann, any member of their holiday group, or Robert Murat, were at any stage – in May 2007 or subsequently – guilty of malfeasance of any kind in connection with Madeleine McCann’s disappearance or the repercussions that followed. Allegations or innuendos about their role ....

made or published by others, when referenced in the text of this book, are published only in the interests of reporting the history of the case – and to demonstrate the very point that such allegations are based on no factual evidence or are simply egregious. This book has been researched and written independently of Gerry and Kate McCann.

This statement is rather interesting, given that is equates their declaration that they have seen no evidence to indicate guilt with a declaration where they claim to have demonstrated that any speculation to the contrary is unfounded.Now - those two statements do not mean the same thing. They may not have seen evidence of guilt, but neither have they seen exculpatory evidence. Crucially, they most certainly have not seen all the evidence. In fact, they have seen exactly what we have seen and written a book that any of us could have written with the exception of a very small amount of new information, which I will highlight as we go.

Sunday, 28 October 2018

Evening folks,I thought it was time to fetch this over from next door, in light of the recent shenannigans on CMOMM

Evening folks.I thought it was time to give this a fresh airing, in light of the cobblers on the CMOMM

Bonkers Bennett's tweet

This #EUMETSAT satellite image shows the cloud cover over Portugal at 1pm, Thur 3 May 2007, when the #McCann’s say the #LastPhoto was
taken. PeterMac obtained it. All reports for that day say the sun never arrived until 5pm. So was the so-called LastPhoto really taken that day? pic.twitter.com/mmYGMnlMsy

Friday, 26 October 2018

Evening allIf you open a window and point your ears to the far, far west, you might hear a very faint, very distant bleatingFor the hard of hearing, or the little of caring, I have fetched it here for you. You're welcome

It would be irresponsible of me to ignore efforts to discredit research that is IMPORTANT to the Maddie Case.

It is not important to the Maddie case, it is complete bullshit

It's quite shocking to see accusations of 'research' being referred to as an opinion. It is based on the POLICE FILES!

It IS opinion. You might have put the files through your patented "discrepancy filter" but that does not mean what comes out the other end is anything other than opinion. Demented, sad, lonely opinion

Although my Research and Reference Aimoo Forums are not available right now due to Aimoo moving locations, here are SOME screenshots to show EXACTLY what research is...

No-one cares, Lizzie. And that's not research, dear. That's an illness. You can probably get tablets for it, I'll do some research for you.......

I took ALL the statements and compiled them into timelines covering different topics and created timetables to highlight, by each hour, what all the T9 claimed to be doing at any particular time.

Fabulous. What a credit to Canada you are

I compiled a Staff Rota so it can be seen their hours, and also easy to see if their statements (about seeing Maddie eg) correspond with their working times.

I'm sure they're really grateful

I compiled all the police statements and out them together to give a timeline of what each of them said throughout the night and at what time.

Was the Samaritans engaged?

I compile tennis timetables, a timetable of everyones statements after the 10pm alert, Phone pings,

Calendars so its easy to see what happened every day with photos, media articles, Kates Diary , Gerrys blog and PJ information files. Phone ping locations to see where they visited on what day Interesting to see when its all compiled together...

There is far too much to list, but I felt it important to assure members that when I claim i did RESEARCH.... it CANNOT be discredited as its all file based.

It makes no difference. You did not research, you daft old bat. You made lists. And then came to a load of fuckwitted, erroneous conclusions which completely ignore the FACT that there is prima facie evidence that Madeleine was alive and well on the 3rd May

All of us, seeing the research available, are free to come to their own conclusions

Yes. My conclusion is that you are utterly wrong and would benefit from therapy

This is just the groundwork for members to access different topics in the files easily.

Once I have links to the Aimoo forums I will post so you can click on any link of interest.

For now if anyone would like to see any of the topics in the screenshots I will be happy to provide them

Why - so that they can also reach idiotic conclusions?Try to understand before one of us dies.You are wrongYou display well-observed and recorded characteristics of a conspiraloon, ignoring 95% of the evidence in favour of 5% discrepancies which you then obsess over and literally get your jollies fromStep away from the screen, Lizzie. You have created a ''brand'' out of your shit videos and funereal graphics.Go get some help, loony. Oh - and read this. If you don't recognise yourself, you are not looking hard enough.With thanks to Donna Ferentes, and the folks at Urban7510 characteristics of conspiracy theoristsA useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore. Just as a footnote, look at this:

Thursday Midday Comparison of Statements - Particularly interesting as it can be seen that Gerry, Kate and Fiona, all disagree on who picked up Madeleine and the twins at lunchtime on the day she disappeared!!

Catriona claims to not remember... WHY? Was Madeleine REALLY there?

This was accompanied by a fucking list of extracts from the statements.The stupid bitch can't even read her own "research", it would appear.Kate and fiona agree, and the creche register confirms this.And "Catriona claims not to remember" CLEARLY implies that she was not being truthful. This is the problem, Lizzie. You can't even be honest with yourself, let alone anyone elseAnd the point you STILL DON'T GET is that it does not make any bloody difference because plenty of people saw her, a written record agrees with the witness accounts and it does not outweigh the prima facie evidence - do you not understand that? Then you have no business describing yourself as a researcher, you plank.

Wednesday, 24 October 2018

Evening allI am just going to post these here without adding any commentary, other than to say that the very idea of being told by this motley crew that you need to ''back things up with evidence'' is beyond hilariousEnjoy

Administrator Warning

Please respect other forum members and the skilled research that they have carried out over many years. Your posts are not backed up with any credible evidence and only appear to serve the purpose of discrediting the research of other members which are backed up with evidence. Please make sure that you can provide valid evidence to back up such posts and not just opinion.I suggest that you watch the documentaries by Richard Hall, read the e-book by Petermac, review the evidence presented on this forum which indicates Madeleines earlier death and the research & videos of HiDeHo, before making any further comment on this subject.

Thank you

There is no intention to silence any member from posting on any topic, but the researchers here have done a vast amount of work on this topic and have all reached the same conclusion. This has also been discussed on the forum many times. Phoebe, like all other members is entitled to her opinion and she is entitled to express that opinion. She has been permitted to do this and her posts are still available. However, much of what Phoebe has to say on this topic has already been dealt with on the forum and we are just going over old ground, this is getting us no closer to finding out what happened to Madeleine and it appears that Phoebes' posts are meant only to discredit the research of other members. Also whilst Phoebe may have posted evidence from the official files, she does not recognise that some of this evidence may have been engineered by the McCann private detectives or that it may be false evidence produced after the witnesses had met with the McCann benefactor, Brian Kennedy.

Now either Phoebe is a little naive and not quite up to scratch with her research or she is deliberately trying to discredit the work of other members who have all reached the same conclusion after years of excellent research.

Phoebe is quite free to post on any topic that she wants too but we just request that does further research in this area before making further comment.